Consultation, not in forceSecondaryColorado Supreme Court Legal Technology Advisory CommitteeLast checked 31 October 2026
Jurisdiction
Colorado: AI rules for lawyers
Colorado, United States · Switch state
- United States federal courts
- Alabama
- Alaska
- Arizona
- Arkansas
- California
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- District of Columbia
- Florida
- Georgia
- Hawaii
- Idaho
- Illinois
- Indiana
- Iowa
- Kansas
- Kentucky
- Louisiana
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- Mississippi
- Missouri
- Montana
- Nebraska
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- North Carolina
- North Dakota
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Oregon
- Pennsylvania
- Rhode Island
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- Tennessee
- Texas
- Utah
- Vermont
- Virginia
- Washington
- West Virginia
- Wisconsin
- Wyoming
What this means for lawyers
Colorado has amended its Rules of Professional Conduct (Rule Change 2026(02), adopted 8 January 2026, effective immediately): a lawyer who uses technology, including AI, may be disciplined for a resulting rule violation.
Rule 1.1 Comment [8] now ties competence to knowing the benefits and risks of relevant technology; new Comment [9] flags Rules 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 3.1, 3.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 7.1 and 8.4(g) as engaged by AI use, and says reliance on technology does not displace independent judgment.
Verify every citation. The Court of Appeals has warned lawyers and self-represented parties that future filings with generative-AI hallucinations may be sanctioned, and a lawyer was suspended in 2023 after filing unverified ChatGPT-sourced citations and then falsely blaming an intern.
In federal court, check the assigned judge's orders: some D. Colo. judges require an AI certification in every filing (for example, Judge Wang's order, effective 1 December 2025).
As at .
Telling the court and the client
- Tell the courtVaries by court
Court disclosure: depends — no statewide Colorado state-court rule found; some federal D. Colo. judges require a certification of AI use or non-use. Client disclosure/consent: no rule found — the amended Rules name Rule 1.4 (communication) as potentially engaged by AI use but impose no express disclosure or consent duty. (Judge Wang's sample certification includes a statement that the client was advised of and consented to AI use, but it is given "for illustrative purposes only".)
- Tell the clientUnclear
Same basis and sources as above.
What changed in Colorado in the last 12 months
- DatedSB26-189 Automated Decision-Making Technology (repeals and reenacts SB24-205)
- DatedRule Change 2026(02): Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct, Preamble and Scope (new [20A]) and Rule 1.1 (Comment [8] amended, Comment [9] added)
- DatedStanding Order Regarding the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence ("AI") in Court Filings
AI instruments
Courts and tribunals
8 January 2026; start date not confirmedBinding ruleColorado Supreme CourtLast checked 31 October 2026
1 December 2025; start date not confirmedProfessional guidanceUnited States District Court, District of Colorado (Judge Nina Y. Wang)Last checked 31 October 2026
26 December 2024; start date not confirmedProfessional guidanceColorado Court of AppealsLast checked 31 October 2026
State bar and regulators
22 November 2023; start date not confirmedProfessional guidancePresiding Disciplinary Judge, Colorado Supreme CourtLast checked 31 October 2026
Legislation
1 January 2027; start date not confirmedSecondaryColorado General AssemblyLast checked 31 October 2026
Sources
- Colorado Supreme Court Legal Technology Advisory Committee: Legal Technology Advisory Committee (established 2025): drafting guidance on technology and AI use · last checked
- Colorado Supreme Court: Rule Change 2026(02): Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct, Preamble and Scope (new [20A]) and Rule 1.1 (Comment [8] amended, Comment [9] added) · last checked
- United States District Court, District of Colorado (Judge Nina Y. Wang): Standing Order Regarding the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence ("AI") in Court Filings · last checked
- Colorado Court of Appeals: Al-Hamim v. Star Hearthstone, LLC, 2024 COA 128 (published opinion on AI-generated fictitious citations) · last checked
- Presiding Disciplinary Judge, Colorado Supreme Court: People v. Crabill, No. 23PDJ067: Stipulation to Discipline (approved 22 November 2023) · last checked
- Colorado General Assembly: SB26-189 Automated Decision-Making Technology (repeals and reenacts SB24-205) · last checked
Court AI rule changes + new tools, monthly
One email a month when a court changes its AI practice note or a tool is added to the catalogue. Your address is kept for that note. See Privacy.
Before the work starts
- Define the matter
Confirm the client’s instructions, jurisdiction, intended output and the information available before dividing the work.
- Confirm the source material
Check the work against the original records and identify omissions, contradictions and remaining information.
- Record review and approval
Resolve exceptions and record the responsible lawyer’s approval of the exact output and intended use.
- Jurisdiction
Apply this guidance to the actual matter and jurisdiction. Confirm current requirements before relying on an example.
Limits on AI assistance
- Confirm firm, client and applicable court or professional restrictions before using any AI feature.